TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Brendan Frasier is going bankrupt because he broke his back in Hurrican Sandy and can't pay his monthly $110,000 alimony.

SpecialFester

January 12, 2014
258 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Brendan Frasier is going bankrupt because he broke his back in Hurrican Sandy and can't pay his monthly $110,000 alimony.
Author

SpecialFester

Upvotes 258
Comments 128
Date January 12, 2014 8:18 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1v1u7e/brendan_frasier_is_going_bankrupt_because_he/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/brendan-frasier-is-going-bankrupt-because-he-broke.231726
https://theredarchive.com/post/231726
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by SpecialFester

Julia Stiles drops some RedPill confession - Hilarious, she realizes what she's done, then stammers and tries to re-rationalize it. There's not a name for that kind of thing is there?...

109 upvotes
April 8, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Feminists enraged at Jion Gomeshi for hosting a debate on his show: Apparently the concept of "rape culture" is magically the one epistemological entity that is outside the domain of concepts that are able to be subjected to logical analysis

49 upvotes
March 26, 2014
/r/MensRights

Apparently the 80/20 thing is true on Grindr as well - And HuffPo criticizes gay men for having the same dealbreaker criteria as women, listed in their Grindr profiles: "Only Masc." "Tall" "No Asians" etc. - Criticize women for this and you'd be called Misog.

41 upvotes
January 17, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Why feminists hate evolutionary biology.

21 upvotes
September 17, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

"Maleness ITSELF is to blame" - Never heard Misandry expressed in such blissfully explicit terms before.

20 upvotes
February 10, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Are there any good RP podcasts?

18 upvotes
October 11, 2013
/r/askTRP

A Kiss Isn't Just a Kiss, It's Also a Mating Audition - TIME

16 upvotes
October 11, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Good Morning Red Pill! Just another hypergamous slut, about to wreck havoc on an AFC.

14 upvotes
October 16, 2013
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–][deleted] 145 points146 points147 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A moment of silence please for a fallen brother.

[–]ryeprotagonist 60 points61 points62 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

i just googled her and found her profile on imdb. she is/was a working actor.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0807211/

she has the same job as her ex-husband... yet some judge decided that he had to subsidize her to the tune of a $110k/month free ride.

don't worry though men... feminism is working on our problems.

[–]1mrust 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is really insightful. She has the same job. Really underlines that feminists are not after equal opportunities, but equal outcomes.

[–]vaker 26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Equal? No. They are after outcomes that give them huge advantages.

[–][deleted] 84 points85 points86 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

As a result, Fraser was forced to plead poverty to the courts in order to get the payments reduced.

Nobody should have to 'plea' anything to escape such a nonsensical burden. I'd love to hear from someone who thinks this sort of thing is OK.

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points41 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Sad thing is that you would not have to look that hard to fond people whom are ok with this.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Let's see how long this takes...

[–]alt30313 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

From the thread:

It's justifiable because the law allows it. She had the chance, and she took it. Life is under no obligation to be fair or even possible; the strong survive for a time while the weak perish.

What were you expecting?

[–]Lakey91 30 points30 points30 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

TIL weak means not being able to fight off the full force of the state single handedly.

[–]Crackerjacksurgeon 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously. The government is the new Alpha hubby, remember?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's justifiable because the law allows it.

That's like saying you can do whatever you want, because you can.

You can take his money, because of the law.

I can murder someone, because I know I can get away with it.

Jesus fuck.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a wonderful argument. Lets stop all support for single mothers right now.

[–]anal_cyst 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's ok because the government says it is? life isn't supposed to be fair? then by that retarded logic lets just abolish the entire justice system all together.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Expecting a woman to have compassion and mercy?

[–]ekjohnson9 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That was LITERALLY the defense for the Jim Crow laws.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I knew the thread was going to be aggravating. This is one of the one's I did not actually expect.

The worst was the comment that said "Modern alimony is equitable! Stop perpetuating the myth that it disproportionately affects men!" to which I replied with one word: "Source?"

And now that comment telling me to "stop perpetuating the myth" of reality is deleted. What a coward.

[–]TRP Vanguardnicethingyoucanthave 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Looks like the mods deleted it.

[–]garbonzo607 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why?

[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"They are, in that way, in large part entitled to a part of the additional earnings they they have helped to create."

Soooo a housewife with a husband that makes that much money doesn't sit on her ass all day and do nothing? I bet you she did jack and shit to help brendan frasier make any of that money and only spent it for him.

[–]muh_6_million -1 points-1 points-1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

*who

If you don't know the difference, just use "who" instead of trying to seem smart.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I honestly thought it was whom since that word in Spanish means "quien/quienes" and I was saying "gente quien piense asi"

Condescending tone side, thanks for the correction.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Even the magnitude is crazy. She also kind of fucked up making it so high, if he had a decent amount of money to take care of himself he'd be able to pay for longer but she couldn't see the forest through the trees.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He should have attacked it from a standpoint of cruel and unusual punishment. Noone needs $110k a fucking month in alimony. If they need that much money let her find another rich sucker to fuck her and give her everything.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Doesn't cruel and unusual punishment fall more under the realm of criminal law?

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would think it applies to whatever the government does to you.

I mean they cant just goto civil court and suddenly come up with a punishment equivalent of torture after all.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can easily imagine that if his ex had some career-destroying dirt on him, he may well have 'willingly' agreed to these numbers her lawyer offered up, in which case the judge would have no reason to order otherwise.

[+]ialdabaoth -25 points-24 points-23 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How's this: life's tough and unfair, and you either overcome it or die. Alimony and feminism and such are just more things that you have to overcome before (or until) they kill you.

Life doesn't care if the tests it throws you are fair, and it doesn't care if it didn't prepare you for them. It doesn't even care if it lied to you about them. It just fucks you over, and then you're done.

The fact that someone is failing should earn contempt, not pity.

[–]cooledcannon 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thats the whole reason for alimony in the first place(pity for hardship), which makes his situation even more unjust.

[–]ialdabaoth -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no justice. People bought the idea that there should be, which suckered them into allowing alimony. Now people are using alimony to promote injustice. That's how all laws and morals work.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ialdabaoth -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Too much edge, not enough thinking. Men seeing unfair situations and deciding to fix them is the reason we don't live as malnourished serfs on some baron's land anymore, offering up our wives in jus primae noctis.

Worked pretty well for the baron, didn't it?

Feminists have manipulated the laws in this country to their own advantage, but that doesn't mean those laws can never be changed back to some semblance of justice, or that we should just snicker contemptuously at men who are victimized by them instead of fixing them.

There's that "should" again. I'm afraid you've caught me in a particularly nihilistic mood. Care to explain how "should" is relevant without the force to back it up, and why anyone capable of wielding that force might care about those who aren't?

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points38 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"It's my nature; that's what scorpions do."

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bill Burr is a fucking hero.

[–]Mengs87 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Smashing the patriararchy! One day, there'll be no one left...

[–]∞ Mod | TRP Vanguardbsutansalt 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

What's the average to raise a kid these days, $200,000? that's under $1000 a month over 18 years, which IMO is all she should be getting. NEEDS of the child is what CS should be based on, not a wealth transfer system we have today.

[–]TRP Vanguardtheubercuber 29 points30 points31 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

What's the average to raise a kid these days, $200,000?

The real question at hand is "What's the average to support a fully staffed family court?"

They get 10% of alimony and child support settlements.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

OK now that makes WAY more sense on why the courts would actually give a crap about making these huge settlements.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title IV-D section 666.

The federal government pays the States to collect CS. The more CS the State collects, the more federal money it gets.

[–]-RobotDeathSquad- 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

holy hell, 666 is so apt.

[–]ChimpWithACar 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is this true in all states?

[–]contravius 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it's a federal kickback.

[–]bh3244 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

damnit now it all makes sense.

[–]WeAreAllSheep 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title IV-D section 666

WTF?!?

source? Now it makes sense why they want to jack up the alimony payments

[–]headless_bourgeoisie 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Dave Foley from Kids in the Hall can't go back to Canada because they'll arrest him for not paying his absurd child support payments. Doesn't get to see his kids at all.

[–]Space_Ninja 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A family of four could live pretty comfortably for a year with what she makes in a month from alimony and child support. This is really obscene.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 68 points69 points70 points 12 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

Seems like hiring a hitman would be cheaper than years of $1,320,000 a year in payment.

[–]puaSenator 52 points53 points54 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Paul McCartny's wife is getting a little bit over that. I remember reading it in college for a class, and I remember how she was complaining about how she only got 70k a year for childsupport. She said she couldn't possibly raise the child on 70k a year because 5 trips on first class airfare will cost that alone.

The judge was just like, "WTF lady. You are getting 1.5m a year for the rest of your life. I think you can figure out a way to get your child into first class".

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Yeah the amount of money rich men's wives get is absurd, though probably in line with what poorer men give proportionally.

A big difference between McCartney and Frasier is that McCartney is probably still making bank off residual income even though he's not particularly active now. Frasier likely makes much less while not active.

[–]mysterr9 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Paul McCartney is wealthier than Brendan Fraser by several orders of magnitude, in no small part due to his publishing rights. Unfortunately, that's also why Yoko is so loaded.

[–]polysyllabist3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Isn't Yoko from death? Not divorce?

[–]mysterr9 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I may not have been clear. I was implying that Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney were both very wealthy ad a result of Beatles publishing rights, since Lennon and McCartney wrote nearly all the songs.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately

[–]Phaereaux 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I so wish we were in a tavern right now, because I'm real poised to laugh at "several orders of magnitude," based on delivery.

Correct, though. Any broad who ever married a Beatle isn't worried about paying her gas bill next month, for instance.

[–]garbonzo607 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why unfortunately?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because she didn't work for any of the money, just married into it?

[–]garbonzo607 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you against people giving away money to others? Because that's basically what Lennon did. By getting married and having a will, he agreed that she should have that money.

Where do you think the money should have gone?

[–]Phaereaux 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"Uh, I've always been pretty enough to live in Rancho. I didn't know Blair Pioli charged money for personal training, he's always so nice to me! This is the lifestyle I've grown accustomed to!"

-That's usually all a judge needs to hear.

And to be fair, no judge on the planet is interested in seeing what happens when you give Boo Simmons from Omada, Alabama $3.4M of Caterpillar's money, for instance. So it shouldn't be terribly surprising that any judge would deem it fair for a woman to go from lavish to "your on your own. And these kids."

I just mean to say, sometimes I get it. But Brendan Frasier?! Dude is a total bro and I find it real hard to come up with these valuations on a future-earnings basis. Come on, dude has always been selective about the work he takes. He's not a dude who just is going to star in a movie for a paycheck.

I mean he's quirky as fuck and hasn't necessarily chosen masterpiece films to star in, but he clearly has a distinct taste and sense of moviedom.

I just feel bad for brother.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it sucks for him that all a girl has to do is pop out a kid and get wifed to make a shitload of money.

It also sucks for all the other men that have to pay alimony and child support based on "potential" earnings.

It's slavery, basically.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not slavery, but it is textbook involuntary servitude. Honestly, read court cases on involuntary servitude and then look at how the government enforces CS: Taking away licenses and passports? Textbook. Threatening with imprisonment? Textbook.

The CS system is a violation of the 13th amendment. It is a violation of men's Constitutional rights (and the few women who are under the system as well). Men in the US would be well within their rights to revolt over the system. And I will cheer them on if they were to do so. Hell, if enough do it I would likely even join in.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Income tax is Constitutionally allowed. Indentured Servitude is actually explicitly Constitutionally denied.

On top of that, taxes and the draft are services to the State/Nation and as such are considered exempt from the Involuntary Servitude provision of the 13th.

[–]gingersluck 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

HALF!

[–]SpecialFester[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

I just had like that exact same comment typed up by my browser crashed. She's not even anyone famous either, she was like a walk on role in 2 movies like 10 years ago. A low profile, helpless, entitled boob like herself would be considered easy pickings for even the most bumbling contract killers out there. He could have an experienced, reliable, trustworthy hitman do this job for a few thousand easily.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And I have the feeling that if this sort of absurd legal situation bankrupts and imprisons more and more men that eventually you will see people pursuing that option more often.

[–]netgrey8 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Fuck Americans revolted over a tea tax and now we have tyrants imposing such drastic economic sanctions that you'll never be able to pay them off and then when you can't you are thrown I'm a debtors prison where your debt just keeps going up.

Sooner or later there will be violence if this continues. I hope I'm wrong, but you can only push and take from men for so long.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but also remember how feminized men have become. Low Testosterone levels and the overall betaness of men will stave off violence for a while. Eventually I think it will likely be clashes among race that initiate the violence long before downtrodden men do.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I would just leave the country...

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

As an actor that would essentially mean the end of his career. Though.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

True, but I don't think a murder scandal would help much either... Also, his movies haven't been doing that well lately anyway.

The system is so fucked up, this type of conversation shouldn't even be happening.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

The system is so fucked up, this type of conversation shouldn't even be happening.

But it is, so it is.

Personally, I wouldn't go after the ex. She's not the one violating my rights. The judge who ordered the support tho, that fucker would be dead. And then I would hope that more men under child support orders would kill their judges until we, as men, reclaimed our rights.

The blood of patriots and tyrants.

[–]gprime312 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I feel dirty upvoting you.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't. The system is what it is, and the system has made any method other than violent revolution impossible for men to regain rights. Allowing women's suffrage and giving majority control of government over to women has made this so: politicians answer to votes, and unless we make them answer to force the greater women's vote will continue to strip rights from men. We men invited this tyranny unto ourselves, and we men must be the solution to end it.

Revolt, Expat, or Turtle. Tis your choice which path to take.

[–]vaker 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yep. It should have stayed 'male votes for the whole family'. We started circling the drain when the right to vote was given to a bunch of completely emotional creatures.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I know plenty of intelligent females who agree with you.

[–]Modredpillschool 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To clarify, you are speaking hypothetically and have no current plans to kill anybody, correct?

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Currently, no.

If I did, I sure as hell wouldn't be talking about it. First anyone would hear about it would be the news.

[–]MasterGolbez 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You've been linked by the blue pill

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I know. I don't care. I've already read it.

Oh, and waves I don't care about being on watchlists either. Guys with my training know we live the rest of our lives on a watchlist.

Besides, I can get away with exercising my 1st Amendment rights without so much as a peep from the authorities. It's when I buy too much explosives precursors that the FBI/ATFE knocks on my door: "Why yes, Special Agent Smith, I am making explosives. I've got a few stumps on my property I want to remove. Would you like to supervise?" "No need, Mr. Demonspawn, we know you know how to make it and use it... that's why we're here. Have fun with the stumps."

Yeah I could have just bought some dynamite, but it's like shooting on the range: gotta keep the skills sharp.

[–]Endorsed Contributor30303030303030 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Besides, I can get away with exercising my 1st Amendment rights without so much as a peep from the authorities.

That's naive man. Past year proved that USA cares less about their people rights than China cares about theirs. I don't think Obama is schooling China on human rights anymore :)

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's when I buy too much explosives

As opposed to just the right amount.

[–]Endorsed Contributor30303030303030 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's coming. Maybe not killing but to many men are fucked in the ass by divorce court. There is a breaking point to everything.

The blood of patriots and tyrants.

Why patriots?

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why patriots?

Because being a patriot doesn't make you invulnerable. Some will die killing the tyrants.

Protip: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Seems like a toss up between a murder scandal and impoverishment, not having custody, and possible jail time from not being able to pay outrageous alimony/child support.

But yeah, this should never even be a conversation.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Bottom line, DON'T GET MARRIED.

[–]∞ Mod | TRP Vanguardbsutansalt 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nor have kids. An unknown vasectomy is the only trump card men have arty the moment.

[–]karneadou 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would expat and move. Yes his hollywood career is over and with it the big bucks, but he will win his freedom.

Brendan Fraser is a star and has been to the top of the mountain (Mummy, Bedazzled, Crash). Dude is a great man who accomplished a lot...nothing but respect for him.

Move to Russia or Eastern Europe (maybe Czech or Hungary where lots of films are made). Learn the language and use your name and star power to land on like TV, foreign films, direct, produce, web (youtube) whatever, just stay in the biz but at a lower level.

You will never have the uber million dollar LA lifestyle but fuck it, you are a free man and a big hollywood star living in a country full of super hot, red pill loving woman.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Because no one in /r/SRS or /r/feminism has ever talked about killing a man or cutting off his penis.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

We are not going to feminize this discussion for you or anyone else . We don't give a fuck who likes us or what they think .

Your mindset is so horribly bluepill in that regard .

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Nice strawman . What the fuck are you doing in this discussion ?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That's not a strawman, that's what you said. In response to "maybe talking about murder isn't really the best thing for the reputation of this sub", you said "we are not going to feminize this discussion". How is that a strawman?

It's a strawman because you're asking men who are speaking like men to speak like women. When I tell you to stop feminizing the conversation, you equate my argument , which was stop feminizing the conversation, to "you support murder?" which is a FUCKING STRAWMAN.

I didn't say anything about murder. I don't support that guy's comment. But I have the respect to let him say it, whatever the consequences are for him, NOT ME. Part of the way our society has become feminized is when someone speaks something a woman doesn't like, she doesn't say "That guy is fucked up!" she says, "Look at that guy! All men are fucked up!"

You getting it yet?

[–]garbonzo607 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but he has 1 point now (after I down voted it). It is not a view TRP as a whole represents. It's just one guy. A guy who seems to be into some shady stuff to know how much a hitman usually goes for....

[–]thecajunone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If a man was taking all your money year by year you would want to kill him. Has nothing to do with the sex of the person.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

$110,000?! MONTHLY?! What kind of fuckery is this?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's fucking disgusting, is what it is.

[–]senorworldwide 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fucking women. How can she stand to look in the mirror?

[–]ialdabaoth 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Also: Here is the alpha solution to alimony.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/wealthy-gop-donor-gets-lawmaker-to-write-bill-to-help-with-child-support-payments-b99182267z1-239776351.html

[–]vaker 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Good idea but doesn't go far enough.

[–]mechakingghidorah 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most Judges are elected officials, what we really need are mass redpill votin drives to elect pro-male judges.

[–]ialdabaoth 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, he's only doing it for himself; why should he care what happens to those who aren't as successful as he is?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Cyhawk 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is coming from memory, so I may be incorrect on some details.

Alimony comes from a time when women were expected to NOT work, stay home and raise the children during the day. It's been around since the early Babylonian legal texts as at the time it was the man's duty to support his wife(s). This was typically reserved for only the wealthy who wished to take another wife. Why should she be thrown to the streets because he wants new pussy? Makes sense to me, no one should be homeless because their SO is a asshat.

Later it evolved when marriage was no longer a religious construct and became a governmental one (18th, 19th century, post Victorian) when alimony became popular among the middle/working classes when divorces were actually granted. Alimony was normally rewarded due to infidelity or other serious breaches of the marriage contract, things that religion would of handled but now the government had to, since a judge can't damn your eternal soul to hell, they decided to hit your pocket book instead.

Fast forward and add lawyers trying to 'win more' and you get our current system. This is why, if you've ever been through a divorce it becomes a mudslinging match. Why? Because of post-Victorian era concept that alimony should only be rewarded when one party is at fault, and that one party until recently (70s iirc) was only for the woman.

Yea! Progress!

[–]PerniciousOne 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://www.celebitchy.com/283904/brendan_fraser_is_going_broke_on_231k_a_month_loses_around_87k_a_month/

These bloodsuckers are mad at him because he has a net-loss of 87k per month, they assume since he has assets worth around 25 million he should be ok.

If he is running a deficit of 87k a month that is over a million a year, and that will subtract from his investments, then he will be making less and less every year, and then losing more and more.

He was only married to his ex-wife for 9 years, and he is paying her an arm and a leg, I am sure that she spent every second of her time married to him down on her knees scrubbing the tile, gardening, cooking, and slaving away to keep him in the lifestyle he was accustomed to.

[–]Ormild 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It sucks because I don't imagine Fraser is pulling bank like he did back during The Mummy series. I haven't heard his name in a long time so I doubt he's being cast in big movies any more. I can totally see him struggling to make payments.

[–]Lilcheeks 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How long does alimony usually last?

[–]FugitiveAlpha 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It continues until the hit-man finds her ;)

[–]alt30313 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the state. Some states have lifetime alimony others have a statute of limitations guidelines to be interpreted by the judge.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUsherai 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If I recall correctly, California has lifelong alimony, and it's likely that a hollywood divorce would have taken place there.

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_VAG_PLS 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From Wikipedia

In general, there are four types of alimony.[28] Temporary alimony: Support ordered when the parties are separated prior to divorce. Also called alimony pendente lite, which is Latin, meaning, "pending the suit".

Rehabilitative alimony: Support given to a lesser-earning spouse for a period of time necessary to acquire work outside the home and become self-sufficient.

Permanent alimony: Support paid to the lesser-earning spouse until the death of the payor, the death of the recipient, or the remarriage of the recipient.

Reimbursement alimony: Support given as a reimbursement for expenses incurred by a spouse during the marriage (like educational expenses).

[–]Idrinkjdbythegallon 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

THIS DUDE WAS AWESOME IN ENCINO MAN! Thank you comedy central for creating cult classics

[–]nmagod 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What the FUCK judge thought $110 THOUSAND DOLLARS per month was a reasonable alimony amount?

I'm willing to bet my LEGS it was a woman.

[–]RainingDown1 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

never marry/have kids simple

[–]i_am_that_human 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just live together with your 'partner' and avoid getting married. When things go wrong, you only have to worry about child support for 18 or less years.

Whenever I see extremely rich dudes getting married (sometimes without a prenup?!!!) I cringe.

[–]CorruptedMinds 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Did he actually break his back? I see all sorts of conflicting info.. Like one source saying he just 'threw it out' while using a chainsaw to clean up his property after the hurricane... Almost seems like it could be contrived..

[–]bgny 18 points19 points20 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good I hope he gets away with it.

[–]0Zen 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From what i can gather he didn't fracture his spine or anything that severe, but he has had surgery (possibly more to come) and has been advised not to perform his own stunts from now on which will affect his earning potential.

[–]fattymcfattzz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How did he break his back?

[–]mctoasterson 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He should consider this payback for Monkeybone.

[–]Lasers_Pew_Pew_Pew 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

100,000 a month? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME HOW THE FUCK IS THAT FAIR?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fucking cunt women. This is why i wont marry

[–]SomersetRaglan 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to go ahead and play devil's advocate here.

I'll preface this by saying that I think the alimony system is ridiculous, broken, and unfair. This case is deplorable, and I feel nothing but pity for this man and wouldn't wish such cruelty on my worst enemy.

However, here goes:

A woman marries a man because of his potential as a provider. Her job in life is to find the best provider possible. This means, roughly speaking, one who makes as much money as possible. Now, when she marries this provider, there is an opportunity cost involved if she could have done better. But "better" doesn't just mean someone who makes more. "Better" could mean a provider, identical to this one, but different in such a way that the marriage doesn't end in divorce. Now, even if the woman initiates the divorce, from her perspective, its still his fault for reason X Y and Z that made her divorce him.

Now ever year she stays with this provider, she gets one year older, and her pool of potential providers shrinks. If she has children, the pool grows smaller still. Her ability to find another provider who will give her as much money as this guy did is much diminished because she isn't as pretty, has a poor track record, and possibly kids. Now, had she not married him and waited a little bit for a "better" provider, she would have been better off. So we can think of the 110,000 dollars as the opportunity cost of having married the imperfect provider. He took something from her women really can't replace--her youth.

Let's try to turn it around for a bit. Assume you get married tomorrow, and get divorced in 5 years. Now, in those five years, let's say your IQ dropped by 20 points, your muscle mass shrank by 6%, and your penis got shorter by 2 inches. How much do you hate your marriage?

And how much would you milk your wife for to feel better about the fact that your prospects now are not as good as what they were back then?

Again, not saying I agree with this bullshit, but just a different way to think about it.

[–]semigod__ 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Now, in those five years, let's say your IQ dropped by 20 points, your muscle mass shrank by 6%, and your penis got shorter by 2 inches. How much do you hate your marriage?

well, if you want to say your marriageability has been lowered: it is. you wasted thousands, in 5 years probably hundreds of thousands of dollars for your first wife. add alimony, and you are value is significantly lower.

its funny that you think the man has to keep his provision up, even after marriage ends, without holding the woman up to the same standards.

[–]SomersetRaglan 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

its funny that you think the man has to keep his provision up, even after marriage ends, without holding the woman up to the same standards.

I don't. I tried to make that very clear.

What I'm trying to say is that in a zero alimony situation, you would only be short the cash you wasted on your first wife, plus the sex you could have had in that time had you decided to be faithful. One might argue that what she loses is worth more than that.

I'm not saying its right, I'm saying here's another way to think about it that might make it easier to swallow.

[–]Monsieur-Anana -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a Shane. I really like monkey bone

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter